From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B6A49E6F095 for ; Tue, 23 Dec 2025 15:23:56 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=bombadil.20210309; h=Sender:List-Subscribe:List-Help :List-Post:List-Archive:List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:Content-Type:MIME-Version: Message-ID:Date:References:In-Reply-To:Subject:Cc:To:From:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Owner; bh=LOL+AU7kVQyOpYQ+Kf5A4ON6XtLBAZC/C5kIrkAAMMY=; b=bwbv9zMuBopk0ERL3LiE4/OcrA 7xIePZMWEbbqZLwHfHQh1ZxVb2SkQHLGP8XytVpmrKsm76bHucGajnaHjsCH9sJBRx4scMwCrW5K9 xRqa+aoePWCdpos0n8cLd9cit6MCaybEKS51Q3nOQG+BouCwS64B86z/wmV4esBCzKpzgN6Z1i2Ou LbCQyINiE8Fj5IYxtc7QSCZlY8C5Ue05g0gqprWWpVg5Mx8y8lI+Q9IrGsolJzt6pPFEBFwM06KQT gyL2WTLKLhWi/+P6zrWX4Lwr7iTagmv9rmvhPLl88EKPKGTKQdSm0p3V3TMQZKiwqoTgzDuFq/V44 /QspE+/g==; Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=bombadil.infradead.org) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.98.2 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1vY4Eo-0000000Ffie-0Tqd; Tue, 23 Dec 2025 15:23:50 +0000 Received: from ms.lwn.net ([2600:3c01:e000:3a1::42]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.98.2 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1vY4Em-0000000FfiF-1fr4 for linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2025 15:23:49 +0000 DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 ms.lwn.net 88E0540AFF DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lwn.net; s=20201203; t=1766503424; bh=LOL+AU7kVQyOpYQ+Kf5A4ON6XtLBAZC/C5kIrkAAMMY=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=s31WIABBnz/69IfOXguM2PScYz+zPgmqMyTUH2dALC9zZjJY+BFPgwQ7PyfdvaNzO NJRjODp9ayy/VWT+6oaXylLbHZ2PpJikFFmlpYfwBjtA6ySoH74QV5lUE6THGrpA/l EqTdgINL1rfaX40xJ2IofEGLYuqfPwxB3ZefCl9mJI0U32nUUiLbT0gQtasT1p4J8b nrX7ZWWmUS8wDOgAACWolgwoudFUCzOWzFU8ZxpCKskQ/fxROYtykjoH86ywLvHZdW uWr3CKMEr+za8eyKGhfE8DWfUkSmPavYm2RjoylGL69N8Wr+bfYJ2vgSwZgtagWYi1 ixFP/hLDsg0fg== Received: from localhost (unknown [IPv6:2601:280:4600:27b::1fe]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (prime256v1) server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ms.lwn.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 88E0540AFF; Tue, 23 Dec 2025 15:23:44 +0000 (UTC) From: Jonathan Corbet To: Krzysztof Kozlowski , Arnd Bergmann , Krzysztof Kozlowski , Alexandre Belloni , Linus Walleij , Drew Fustini , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, soc@lists.linux.dev, workflows@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Cc: Krzysztof Kozlowski Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Documentation/process: maintainer-soc: Be more explicit about defconfig In-Reply-To: <20251223142726.73417-3-krzysztof.kozlowski@oss.qualcomm.com> References: <20251223142726.73417-3-krzysztof.kozlowski@oss.qualcomm.com> Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2025 08:23:43 -0700 Message-ID: <87ecolxlvk.fsf@trenco.lwn.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.8.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20251223_072348_476911_8752650F X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 19.15 ) X-BeenThere: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org Krzysztof Kozlowski writes: > It is already documented but people still send noticeable amount of > patches ignoring the rule - get_maintainers.pl does not work on > arm64/configs/defconfig or any other shared ARM defconfig. > > Be more explicit, that one must not rely on typical/simple approach > here for getting To/Cc list. > > Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski > > --- > > Incorrectly addressed patches for arm64/defconfig are around ~2 per month... > --- > Documentation/process/maintainer-soc.rst | 6 ++++-- > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/Documentation/process/maintainer-soc.rst b/Documentation/process/maintainer-soc.rst > index 3ba886f52a51..014c639022b2 100644 > --- a/Documentation/process/maintainer-soc.rst > +++ b/Documentation/process/maintainer-soc.rst > @@ -57,8 +57,10 @@ Submitting Patches for Given SoC > > All typical platform related patches should be sent via SoC submaintainers > (platform-specific maintainers). This includes also changes to per-platform or > -shared defconfigs (scripts/get_maintainer.pl might not provide correct > -addresses in such case). > +shared defconfigs. Note that scripts/get_maintainer.pl might not provide > +correct addresses for the shared defconfig, so ignore its output and manually > +create CC-list based on MAINTAINERS file or use something like > +``scripts/get_maintainer.pl -f drivers/soc/FOO/``). > Like Laurent, I don't see this as being effective. Why is it that get_maintainer.pl fails here? It seems far better to fix that, if at all possible, rather than expect random contributors to notice this text and work around the problem...? Thanks, jon